patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,194,807 comments by 13,942 users - AmericanKulak, Blue, Ceffer, clambo, Tenpoundbass online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 86 - 125 of 136 Next » Last » Search these comments
Medicare/Medicaid exceed social security.
These are on-budget, and included in my analysis that compared on-budget pre-1971 and on-budget post 1971, that was flat.
That's exactly what's wrong with analysis from book cookers like yourself. The massive increase in Medicare/Medicaid over the decades (now 23% of total federal government outlay, more than defense budget and more than social security outlay, more than the entire "discretionary" that the sitting administration has directly control over) is cooked down to "flat." Somehow chalked up to aging population instead of recognizing that the cost of medicine has gone haywire under the government 3rd party pay system.
Not preventing market clearing, but causing misallocation of resources into less productive, non-productive or counter-productive use.
So how has spending on social security done this?
The "trust fund" fraud enabled the massive military spending during Reagan years after "reforming SS." Now the stolen funds have to be paid back by current payroll tax, which is preventing the job market from clearing (i.e. preventing the youths from working).
That's exactly what's wrong with the analysis from book cookers like yourself. The massive increase in Medicare/Medicaid over the decades (now 23% of total budget outlay) is cooked down to "flat." Somehow chalked up to aging population instead of recognizing that the cost medicine has gone haywire under the government 3rd party pay system.
You are changing your argument - if you want to argue WHAT government is spending on (more specfically, what it is NOT spending on) now compared to the 1950s/60s, I am in agreement. We spend more of the on-budget outlays on medicine for old folks now than we did in the past - this has caused massvie rent-seeking in the medical profession. This does contribute to economic growth but not in a efficient way because of the private/public nature of the relationship.
Spending has shifted from from productive areas (like on infrastructure) to rent seeking. But it has not increased. trhis is why economic activity has fallen. Cutting spending further on prudcutive areas is not the answer.
ou are changing your argument - if you want to argue WHAT government is spending on (more specfically, what it is NOT spending on) now compared to the 1950s/60s, I am in agreement. We spend more of the on-budget outlays on medicine for old folks now than we did in the past - this has caused massvie rent-seeking in the medical profession. This does contribute to economic growth but not in a efficient way because of the private/public nature of the relationship.
I have not changed argument. Government spending tends to attract rent seekers. After all what else do you call people with connections for getting government contracts? This does not contribute to economic growth at all . . . as resources and human labor are wasted instead of being put to more productive use.
Spending has shifted from from productive areas (like on infrastructure) to rent seeking. But it has not increased. trhis is why economic activity has fallen. Cutting spending further on prudcutive areas is not the answer.
It's a mistake to think even infrastructure building by the government is productive: it's just another form of rent-seeking, by the unions and big construction monopolies with their own lobbies and tap into the government funding process. In fact, they may well be the same crew building the hospital buildings and get the taxpayers to pay several times the cost over many years.
Sovereign US debt, or corporate debt of unassailably high quality (hence, the term gilt edged) would soar in a deflationary depression. We saw this flight to quality during the Bush administration financial panic.
Not sure if you understood, I was talking about regular, individual debtors. Sure they will default much faster as they don't have a printing press, followed by corporate debt. But if you think that US cannot default or inflate its way out (de facto default) I have that bridge that I'd like to sell you. The "fight to quality" won't be last long enough and is heavily depending on the dollar's status as wold reserve currency.
Well, Watson, you read but you do not comprehend. The elite status belongs to those who are both debt free and creditors.
It's you who doesn't comprehend. You don't have to have "elite status" to be debt free. Just a regular middle-class citizen who opted out of being a debt-serf. Which used to be the norm - being debt free or keeping debt at a minimum, shorter mortgages, etc. Correcting inflated prices can only aid.
All of you are making this out to be way more complicated than it need be. We all know that all government spending is eeee-vil. At least any government spending that possibly benefits the working and middle classes. Thus what is there to debate here? Its clear that we should only spend what the lobbys and outside interests want us to spend or not spend money on. As a staunch conservative, I strongly feel that its a big waste to spend money on roads, schools, airports, buses, and libraries. Americans want freedom! And that of course means they should be totally happy to do without and be stoically happy to provide the the aforementioned lobbys because we've all been promised that if we suffer, then perhaps someday we too will be rich rich rich!
freak80
2013 Jul 25, 1:52am
And that of course means they should be totally happy to do without and be
stoically happy to provide the the aforementioned lobbys because we've all been
promised that if we suffer, then perhaps someday we too will be rich rich rich!
Absolutely. Extreme wealth concentration is good for us. Just like chromium.
;-)
As a staunch conservative, I strongly feel that its a big waste to spend money on roads, schools, airports, buses, and libraries.
Roads (turnpikes), schools and libraries all existed long before the government got in on the act. Many airports today are still privately owned, as are most bus lines running between cities.
When the government gets into building these things, that's when things get expensive, and lobbyists get involved to ensure that the big corporate monopolies get the government contracts, and send the bills to the hapless taxpayers.
freak80
2013 Jul 25, 1:56am
Roads (turnpikes), schools and libraries all existed long before the government
got in on the act.
Correct. And only the rich could afford to use them.
Don't blame me if you can't read spreadsheets. Look at Table 1.3 in your own link. Here's the sequence of numbers for outlay as percentage of GDP from 1947 to 2012:
1947- 14.8 11.6 14.3 15.6
1951- 14.2 19.4 20.4 18.8 17.3 16.5 17.0 17.9 18.8 17.8
1961- 18.4 18.8 18.6 18.5 17.2 17.8 19.4 20.5 19.4 19.3
1971- 19.5 19.6 18.7 18.7 21.3 21.4 20.7 20.7 20.1 21.7
1981- 22.2 23.1 23.5 22.2 22.8 22.5 21.6 21.3 21.2 21.9
1991- 22.3 22.1 21.4 21.0 20.6 20.2 19.5 19.1 18.5 18.2
2001- 18.2 19.1 19.7 19.6 19.9 20.1 19.7 20.8 25.2 24.1
2011- 24.1 22.8
See a general rising trend there? Don't forget the GDP denominator has been rigged (so the number here look smaller than otherwise would be) since the Clinton administration
Your spreadsheet doesn't say much. Eliminating pre 1952 numbers since that was part of the general drawdown of the government from WWII there hasn't been all that much creep even allowing for your "rigged" numbers. From about 19% to 22% (pre 2007 crash and allowing for "rigged" numbers) is a 3% change over 50 years. Hardly earth shattering onerous burden on the economy, especially since some of that extra spending actually benefits business. The only thing that pops out of your numbers is that the economy has dropped off the face of the earth in 2007 and hasn't even begun to recover yet.
The fact is the federal government hasn't grown all that much relative to the economy. What the federal government is spending on has changed a lot. State and local governments have exploded however which is a much bigger issue, but you don't go into that at all.
Thanks for proving my point: the existence of higher tax brackets did not translate into high tax revenue collected; the tax cut talks did not translate into much reduction in tax revenue collected.
They were never supposed to. The Reagan tax reform was to simplify the tax system, not change the tax collections. The higher brackets were never collected, there were far too many deductions in the tax code for anyone to actually pay 93% at high income levels or anywhere near that. The point of the Reagan tax reform was to radically cut the tax code and lower the rates to make up for it. The key word is "supposed". That was how it was sold, in actual fact taxes got pushed more into the middle class.
The Bush tax cuts are a different story. They were a pure giveaway to the 1%. The housing bubble and off the books spending on the Iraq war covered up the loss of revenue until the housing bubble collapsed, then the deficit went through the roof which is where it has been ever since.
Roads (turnpikes), schools and libraries all existed long before the government got in on the act. Many airports today are still privately owned, as are most bus lines running between cities.
Yup. You are soooo right! Remember back in the Neolythic times? why- those cavemen paid for their own freeways and airports. In fact, they didn't even have government and as some other people indicated before, people lived a lot longer back then than now. They lived to be an average of 130 years old. When government started happening is when things went all to hell.
I strongly feel that its a big waste to spend money on roads, schools, airports, buses, and libraries.
Not everybody who is arguing against deficit spending and bailouts necessarily holds this perspective. The main issue is that if you are going to spend money on things you have to budget for them now, not in the future. And don't funnel it to private corporations to bail them out.
Roads (turnpikes), schools and libraries all existed long before the government got in on the act
Yes let's talk about those private funded Roman roads that made the empire possible. Or church schools (remember the catholic church was a government until very recently) that were free for over 1000 years. Let's also talk about 1-2% literacy rates even with free church schools.
Yup. You are soooo right! Remember back in the Neolythic times? why- those cavemen paid for their own freeways and airports. In fact, they didn't even have government and as some other people indicated before, people lived a lot longer back then than now. They lived to be an average of 130 years old. When government started happening is when things went all to hell.
This is utter nonsense. The Turnpike roads of early 19th century was the state of the art in road building. James Hill's Great Northern railroad was the only transcontinental railroad that did not go bankrupt, unlike all his government-subsidized competitors.
How do you think the highways are built anyway? Some government bureaucrats actually shoveling? No, all the real work are done by private companies. They are just paid differently: instead of being answerable to the consumers, they get the government to loot the taxpayers/consumers and pay them!
Yes let's talk about those private funded Roman roads that made the empire possible.
Commercial roads existed long before Appius came along to give fat cushy jobs to his brothers and cousins. Mediterranean was a sea-borne culture. "Made the empire possible" was not a good thing: destroying liberty and eventually the Mediterranean economy itself. What the Roman road building did was setting up a toll, surveillence and troop quartering system all along the major existing commercial routes. Yes, it strengthened the imperial rule, very much at the expense of the Roman citizens and their neighbors alike.
Or church schools (remember the catholic church was a government until very recently) that were free for over 1000 years. Let's also talk about 1-2% literacy rates even with free church schools.
Do you really think men like Patrick Henry were writing to only 1-2% of the population? Benjamin Frankly was publishing only for 1-2%? Colonial America had very high literacy rate, probably higher than what we have today after a century of public schools. Most of them had to do their own accounting and read their bills in order to survive as proprietors of businesses. They did not have calculators or cash register to figure out changes for them, nor TV comedians to tell them news.
Your spreadsheet doesn't say much. Eliminating pre 1952 numbers since that was part of the general drawdown of the government from WWII
Nonsense. 1952 increase signified the start of Korean War and Cold War. "General drawdown" means transitioning from war time to peace time levels; it wouldn't go lower than normal peace time levels.
From about 19% to 22% (pre 2007 crash and allowing for "rigged" numbers) is a 3% change over 50 years. Hardly earth shattering onerous burden on the economy, especially since some of that extra spending actually benefits business.
1968 was the start of the Great Society program. The change is from about 18% average to 22% average. That's not a 4% increase, but a 22% increase as percentage of GDP (4 / 18 = 22.22). That's a significant increase. The Clinton era rigging of GDP calculation understates the change by inflating GDP. Since the size of the private productive economy has to subtract government spending from GDP, the government commandeering as percentage change of the real productive economy is even greater: increasing from 18 / (100 -18) = 22% to 22 / (100-22) = 28%.
This is utter nonsense. The Turnpike roads of early 19th century was the state of the art in road building. James Hill's Great Northern railroad was the only transcontinental railroad that did not go bankrupt, unlike all his government-subsidized competitors.
Yup. I agree. The roads of the 19th century were ingenious. Deep ruts did a good job of keeping those wagon wheels going in the right direction. The deep mud also made sure nobody drove too fast as well. No need for speed limits then since nobody could go fast.
Like I said- we would all be better off living in caves with no running water or electricity instead of existing in a state with actual government and so on. That's the conservative way!
Do you really think men like Patrick Henry were writing to only 1-2% of the population? Benjamin Frankly was publishing only for 1-2%? Colonial America had very high literacy rate, probably higher than what we have today after a century of public schools
Well of course schools were better back then. They didn't teach nearly as much versus today where students are starting to learn that most conservatives are actually full of crap and that might explain why none of them will vote for the GOP when they grow up either. This of course is bad for us Conservatives who want to keep the masses eating out of the hands of the GOP's financial backers. Schools teaching children the truth will only hurt our righteous conservative causes!
This is utter nonsense. The Turnpike roads of early 19th century was the state of the art in road building. James Hill's Great Northern railroad was the only transcontinental railroad that did not go bankrupt, unlike all his government-subsidized competitors.
This is a perfect example of your argument style. You google something and pass it off as your own. A google search of the topics offers something on mises.org - you quickly skim the opinion piece - then you pass the opinion off as fact and develop a superiority complex against whomever you are arguing. Acting like "What, you didn't know about the successes James Hill's Great Northern railroad" or ""Private turnpike roads of the early 19th century were superior" when you just learned of them yourself 2 minutes before typing your argument doesn't make you smart.
At least give credit to Dr. Dilorenzo if you are going to do that.
How do you think the highways are built anyway? Some government bureaucrats actually shoveling? No, all the real work are done by private companies. They are just paid differently: instead of being answerable to the consumers, they get the government to loot the taxpayers/consumers and pay them!
This is true. The same people are building the roads regardless of if they are either publicly or privately funded. The only difference is in the decision of where the road is built, what it is for, and who is paying for it. Since we all benefit from the road - doesn't it make sense we all pay for it, and have say in where it is built?
Nash equilibrium - read something written in the 20 century. Oligopolies, as an example, operate at higher total efficiency and profitability when they act together than they do when acting without thought of what each other are doing.
Yup. I agree. The roads of the 19th century were ingenious. Deep ruts did a good job of keeping those wagon wheels going in the right direction. The deep mud also made sure nobody drove too fast as well. No need for speed limits then since nobody could go fast.
You are describing the late Roman roads. The 19th century turnpike roads were built precisely to solve those ruts (maintenance) problems. They were the expressways of their time.
Like I said- we would all be better off living in caves with no running water or electricity instead of existing in a state with actual government and so on. That's the conservative way!
Do you think Thomas Edison was a government bureaucrat? or Tesla a desk jockey at the Dept of Energy?
You are describing the late Roman roads. The 19th century turnpike roads were built precisely to solve those ruts (maintenance) problems. They were the expressways of their time.
Oh. silly me. I forgot that those romans actually "did not" build any of those stone-paved roads that even though were built 1000's of years ago still actually exist and are used. yeah... I get ya'! Its important to ignore facts when we- as conservatives- try to make a point. Telling people the truth about the superiority of those Roman roads which were built using tax dollars would suddenly fill our conspiracy theories full of holes.
Reality says
Do you think Thomas Edison was a government bureaucrat? or Tesla a desk jockey at the Dept of Energy?
You forgot that Ronald Regan actually invented the light bulb. Of course the reason he did it was to prove how eee-vil it really was. They run on electricity, and some of those wires go to places like national parks, schools, and libraries: All gubermint-run facilities. And so in a show of solidarity we as conservatives will never consider the use of electricity because it in turn is used in government facilities and we can't have any of that can we?
This is a perfect example of your argument style. You google something and pass it off as your own. A google search of the topics offers something on mises.org - you quickly skim the opinion piece - then you pass the opinion off as fact and develop a superiority complex against whomever you are arguing. Acting like "What, you didn't know about the successes James Hill's Great Northern railroad" or ""Private turnpike roads of the early 19th century were superior" when you just learned of them yourself 2 minutes before typing your argument doesn't make you smart.
At least give credit to Dr. Dilorenzo if you are going to do that.
Wow, talk about projecting! So you googled after reading what I wrote. Good for you. As for me, I read about James Hill before the 2008 crash. After all, some Ayn Rand novel was inspired by his real life story.
This is true. The same people are building the roads regardless of if they are either publicly or privately funded. The only difference is in the decision of where the road is built, what it is for, and who is paying for it. Since we all benefit from the road - doesn't it make sense we all pay for it, and have say in where it is built?
Would not necessarily be the same people building the roads. Market competition would have weeded out the slackers that you see taking 3hr lunch breaks at public road building sites.
Where is this "we all pay" fetish coming from? "We all pay" is why bridges to nowhere are built. Private investors driven by profit motives would prioritize the limited supply of concrete, steel, human labor and capital equipment go build bridges where they are needed the most. Yes, it is about when and where resources are to be applied. The market process just happen to be far more efficient answering to consumer demand than the political patronage system.
Nash equilibrium - read something written in the 20 century. Oligopolies, as an example, operate at higher total efficiency and profitability when they act together than they do when acting without thought of what each other are doing.
Efficiency and profitability as in at the expense of the consumers. Yes, the political oligopolists are indeed quite efficient at exploiting the masses. So are you blinded by your own elitist leanings and think of yourself as part of the "club"? or hired gun? The reality is that, as the pie shrinks due to monopolistic resource allocation inefficiency, more and more hangers-on get bumped off the gravy train.
Oh. silly me. I forgot that those romans actually "did not" build any of those stone-paved roads that even though were built 1000's of years ago still actually exist and are used. yeah... I get ya'! Its important to ignore facts when we- as conservatives- try to make a point. Telling people the truth about the superiority of those Roman roads which were built using tax dollars would suddenly fill our conspiracy theories full of holes.
Roman roads were largely built on top of existing commercial roads. Roman roads standardized gauge span between wheels, so the wagons wouldn't fall apart riding on the ruts. The 19th century turnpike roads were designed and engineered to avoid ruts (or at least to be maintained sufficiently to avoid having ruts). That's why I pointed your historical ignorance.
You forgot that Ronald Regan actually invented the light bulb. Of course the reason he did it was to prove how eee-vil it really was. They run on electricity, and some of those wires go to places like national parks, schools, and libraries: All gubermint-run facilities. And so in a show of solidarity we as conservatives will never consider the use of electricity because it in turn is used in government facilities and we can't have any of that can we?
Go masturbate yourself.
curious2
2013 Jul 25, 3:40am
we would all be better off living in caves with no running water or electricity instead of existing in a state with actual government and so on. That's the conservative way!
OK, as long as we have enough government to require us all to buy insurance, in our caves. And don't forget Richard Proenneke: just because that guy lived on a mountain in Alaska with no running water or electricity or medical facilities within 100 miles, doesn't mean he shouldn't be required to buy mandatory insurance. Poor Bill McGuire has only $1 billion, after years and years of tirelessly defrauding people, while M-Zuck has 10 times that much. It ain't fair! Bill was fooling people into giving up their personal information so he could monetize it when M-Zuck was still in diapers. Make Proenneke and M-Zuck buy insurance, cuz ever'body knows those two are just waiting to show up at an emergency room to shift their costs onto - well nobody knows who exactly, but someone that's for sure. Make the government make them pay Bill McGuire, in advance, so he won't have to live in a cave like ever'body else.
--- oh, wait, what's that you say? It was the Democrats who enacted Obamacare, and the Republicans opposed it? Are you sure? That doesn't fit the narrative at all. Dang.
Roman roads were largely built on top of existing commercial roads. Roman roads standardized gauge span between wheels, so the wagons wouldn't fall apart riding on the ruts.
Actually the Romans used steam locomotives anyway so there was no need to ride around on roads to begin with. Like I said- we as conservatives have to make sure to make up whatever bullshit we can just to prove our points. It seems to work sometimes too!
Go masturbate yourself.
ha ha ha! you say that as if its a bad thing
Do you really think men like Patrick Henry were writing to only 1-2% of the population? Benjamin Frankly was publishing only for 1-2%? Colonial America had very high literacy rate, probably higher than what we have today after a century of public schools.
Try to read things in context if possible. The 1-2% rate was in reference to the church schooling in the middle ages in Europe. Focus.
Colonial schools were public schools from the early 1600's on, at least in New England where the literacy rate was high. Almost every New England town supported an elementary school. I believe it was required by law in MA or CT from pretty much the beginning. Go read a book on colonial history some time. The south had private schooling for the well off and no schooling for everyone else. The literacy rate in the south was very poor until the 20th century.
Actually the Romans used steam locomotives anyway so there was no need to ride around on roads to begin with.
Bullshit, the Romans used diesel locomotives, invented by augustis octavious diesel in ad 221. I read it in wikipedia.
ad 221
Whoops, that't not PC, I forgot Anno Domini has been replaced by CE, christian era. Memory is the second thing to go.
Some towns had public schools from the 1600's; that's not the same thing as all colonial era kids, or even most colonial kids, were taught in public schools. Otherwise, what the heck was the Horace Mann reform in the 1800's about?
By the 2nd half of 1700's, the predominant forms of education in the colonies were home schooling and private schools. That's why Horace Mann had to import Prussian public school system, not copying from the public schools in the colonies from the 1600's. Apparently, the public school system already failed once, before even the American Revolution.
Wow, talk about projecting! So you googled after reading what I wrote. Good for you.
Yeah, just like a few months ago you used grammatically incorrect latin terms when talking about Keynes. Similarly, wikipedia used the exact same latin terms wrongly. You were caught then - I only point it out in case anyone missed that one - Its what you do. Own it.
I googled "examples of 19th century private transporation." Not far, I believe, from what you googled in an attempt to come across sounding "smart."
Private investors driven by profit motives would prioritize the limited supply of concrete, steel, human labor and capital equipment go build bridges where they are needed the most.
Where they are needed the most to maximize profit. We would have 10 million miles of roads in high population areas and few roads (poorly maintained if any) in areas where population, (and therefore usage/profit) was low.
Sorry if your farm in North Dakota needs a way to get its crop to market - the fees aren't there so build it yourself or move the farm.
Some towns had public schools from the 1600's; that's not the same thing as all colonial era kids, or even most colonial kids, were taught in public schools. Otherwise, what the heck was the Horace Mann reform in the 1800's about?
Yeah. But all that really matters is that we succeed in making sure that we tell people that any and all public schools, even back in the 1600's were total failures because we of course have to preserve the narrative that any and all things supported by the gubermint is bad!
Some towns had public schools from the 1600's; that's not the same thing as all colonial era kids, or even most colonial kids, were taught in public schools. Otherwise, what the heck was the Horace Mann reform in the 1800's about?
Yeah. But all that really matters is that we succeed in making sure that we tell people that any and all public schools, even back in the 1600's were total failures because we of course have to preserve the narrative that any and all things supported by the gubermint is bad!
Next conservatives should target social workers - after all they prevent the rights of parents to "whoop that ass" as they see fit. That is an absolute encroachment on freedom!
Yeah, just like a few months ago you used grammatically incorrect latin terms when talking about Keynes. Similarly, wikipedia used the exact same latin terms wrongly. You were caught then - I only point it out in case anyone missed that one - Its what you do. Own it.
What are you talking about? My use was incorrect, but Wikipedia entry was correct . . . Obviously I didn't use Wikipedia. In any case, what's wrong with using Wikipedia? I use it from time to time, including reading to my kids. I just happened not to have used it on that particular occasion, or I wouldn't have made the error. heck, I should have used it.
I googled "examples of 19th century private transporation."
So you googled, good for you.
Not far, I believe, from what you googled in an attempt to come across sounding "smart."
Then your belief is wrong. This is not the first, or even 2nd or even third time I have cited James Hill and Great Northern on Patrick.net in the last half decade+. I don't know about you, but I don't tend to forget things like that.
Where they are needed the most to maximize profit. We would have 10 million miles of roads in high population areas and few roads (poorly maintained if any) in areas where population, (and therefore usage/profit) was low.
I don't know about 10 million miles, as that sounds like beyond point of diminishing return, a point that only the market process can discover. As for not building or building few roads where population density is too low to pay for it, isn't that just another way of saying avoiding building bridges to nowhere? duh! Those value points are precisely what the market place is better at discovering than political patronage.
Sorry if your farm in North Dakota needs a way to get its crop to market - the fees aren't there so build it yourself or move the farm.
I don't get what your point is. Are you saying the government should be building a railroad to the north pole to run a farm powered by nuclear heating? Just because some wise-men think that is feasible?
What is better than the market place in deciding whether a rail through a particular part of North Dakota is worth it? and where the farm is to be located? In our own history, James Hill's Great Northern did go through North Dakota on its way to the Pacific northwest, presumably because land in North Dakota was cheap. Once the rail was in place to connect the major commerce centers, some farms were probably developed close to the rail on land that was previously unused. Why is a process like that suddenly worthy of condemnation in your imaginary world? Do you think there ought to be a farm on the moon, and the government should build an escalator for you to both ship crop from the moon and water/CO2 to the moon for you? Well, in government controlled economy, that's the sort of thing that would happen, just like all those government subsidized transcontinental railroads that went bankrupt as many of them were built at too high cost going through area by political choice with politicians (including Lincoln) already bought land ahead of time and ready to unload onto the politicized railroad project.
Next conservatives should target social workers - after all they prevent the rights of parents to "whoop that ass" as they see fit. That is an absolute encroachment on freedom!
While I'm against physical discipline for kids, I'm not sure having DSS involved in anything less than injury is appropriate. The foster families are often no better than the birth parents in many other ways. When you have kids, you'd realize the subtle surveillence system run by schools on what parents do with kids at home is quite scary.
Let's not forget, one of the consequences of trans-continental railroads, and canals before them, was the bankruptcy of many New England family farms, as crops could be shipped in from the midwest and plains states/territories at much lower cost than growing them in New England.
So what's so special about having to move a farm closer to railroad in North Dakota?
Do some people think there is a constitutional right to having a railroad terminal to one's own door?
wouldn't the weath gap between rich and middle class/lower class actually decrease since the latter 2 don't nearly hold the same percentage of assets in stocks?
No, the vast majority of the middle/lower classes net worth is tied to the present value of their future earning potential. This is the basis for usury - if the potential earning is lessened, net worth (collateral) is lessened.
In short, the wealthy will still hold property/assets that can be exchanged for labor.
The wealthy tend to be more leveraged. That's how their wealth can grow faster during boom times. Crunch time used to be the time period when the wealthy speculative leveragers can crushed. Now with central banking, the downside to leverage is transferred to everyone else.
Some towns had public schools from the 1600's; that's not the same thing as all colonial era kids, or even most colonial kids, were taught in public schools. Otherwise, what the heck was the Horace Mann reform in the 1800's about?
You should really try reading history books instead of reading about history books. Horace Mann reformed schools by secularizing and normalizing (what we now call standards) the curriculm, therefore creating what were known as "normal" schools. He also was a big advocate of the elimination of corporal punishment. Many towns in the north east and in the middle atlantic states had at least semi public schools by Mann's time.
He went to Prussia, studied the system, and wrote extensively on adapting the Prussian standards in the US. The US system never failed, it was standardized and updated where needed to contemporary (of the time) standards.
You should also learn to read what people write. I clearly stated that education was totally private and very poorly implemented in the southern states. It also depends on what you are calling colonial era. Pre printing press or post printing press. Made a big difference.
By the 2nd half of 1700's, the predominant forms of education in the colonies were home schooling and private schools.
Depends on what colony. In the rural south and west where people isolated on farms then home schooling was the only option. In the more industrial NE it was a different story.
In 1647, Massachusetts passed the "Old Deluder Satan Law," requiring that every town of 50 households appoint and pay a teacher of reading and writing, and every town of 100 households provide a Latin grammar school. This law offered a model for other communities (read colonies) and made the establishment of schools a practical reality. Most of New England states passed similar laws.
Also depends on what you call public or private. In places schools were sort of a mix. They were funded by parents paying tuition, but were also partly funded by the towns. Is it fish or fowl?
Horace Mann reformed schools by secularizing and normalizing (what we now call standards) the curriculm, therefore creating what were known as "normal" schools. He also was a big advocate of the elimination of corporal punishment. Many towns in the north east and in the middle atlantic states had at least semi public schools by Mann's time.
He went to Prussia, studied the system, and wrote extensively on adapting the Prussian standards in the US. The US system never failed, it was standardized and updated where needed to contemporary (of the time) standards.
"Normal schools" were schools built for teacher training to further the system. As for what the system is, well, it was the Prussian Model: training young men to be the ready tools of a vigorous state. That's what Horace Mann imported from Prussia, the country built around the Prussian Army.
The Prussian system of centrally planned schools for the cultivation of "patriotic fervor" was far worse than old colonial American system of small town public schools. However, after over a century of public schools, just like typical bureaucratic/monopolistic system decline after 60 years, the Americans of the time must have been dispirited regarding their education system just like we do today and casting about importing foreign "standards-based" nonsense.
In 1647, Massachusetts passed the "Old Deluder Satan Law," requiring that every town of 50 households appoint and pay a teacher of reading and writing, and every town of 100 households provide a Latin grammar school. This law offered a model for other communities (read colonies) and made the establishment of schools a practical reality. Most of New England states passed similar laws.
Also depends on what you call public or private. In places schools were sort of a mix. They were funded by parents paying tuition, but were also partly funded by the towns. Is it fish or fowl?
I think you just answered your own question. The existence of the old law a century and half earlier only meant the sentiment of the time, a century and half earlier. Just like Blue laws and anti-sodomy laws that existed in the books until a decade or so ago does not mean we are still against (other people practicing) homosexuality or drinking on Sundays. By the late 18th century, public schools in America were in decline and private schools were in vogue. Many of the best known "academies" were established in the 18th century.
Lots and lots of over-the-top discussions back and forth just so that some people can in some lame way try and discount public schools because they want others to think that just because a school might have "Public" in front of it and oh-no- we can't have any government intervention in our schools because it interferes with a sort of narrow sighted belief that schools shouldn't be public because "gubermint" that it must be by default bad.
Let me inject some reality into the discussion. So let's be clear: The US public school system isn't perfect. Last time I checked I believe Finland was the Number one ranked country in regards to their schools ( which are public as well BTW). But the argument that "Public" schools are bad just because they are... "Public" is a stupid one. The model itself is totally fine. Its about the curriculum, the funding, and the physical schools themselves. In many states funds that were supposed to be set aside for education are constantly being used for other purposes which in turn puts a strain on the system.
But let's talk about government funding in general. For those who constantly go "Rah Rah Rah!, Government -run anything is Bad!" well... what do you think would happen if everything were instead funded by private individuals and business? You would get "Old Europe" in a bag, that's what. We would go right back to having a rather large, grossly uneducated peasantry with a very small, highly educated elite at the top lording over everything. The whole reason that government plays a role in.... well- "governing" is to in parts ensure that everyone has at least a chance at the pie. Take that power away and put it into the hands of individuals and that pie shrinks dramatically. That is what a democratic system is basically all about in a nutshell. We live in a democratic country and part of that means we pay taxes and those taxes are used to fund public and social functions. If you don't like that then too bad. That's the country we live in and how it was founded.
Lastly, I come from a very long line of teachers. I am one of the first in my family to not become a teacher myself. But all I can say is that me, my brother, and basically my entire family ALL received public school educations. We all do fairly well financially and have been successful in life. So I take issue with people who run around yacking about public schools and how they should be privatized or whatnot when its clear they lack even the basic facts to present a valid arguments and instead let ideology get in the way of reality.
freak80
2013 Jul 26, 12:56am
The whole reason that government plays a role in.... well- "governing" is to in
parts ensure that everyone has at least a chance at the pie. Take that power
away and put it into the hands of individuals and that pie shrinks dramatically.
That is what a democratic system is basically all about in a nutshell.
Well put sir.
« First « Previous Comments 86 - 125 of 136 Next » Last » Search these comments
According to a conservative publication I unquestionably agree with, science has had it all wrong for untold 1000's of years: The wheel is clearly some sort of eeee-vil liberal hoax. The reality is that squares make way better wheels by far. The reason is that a bunch of liberals way back in the day complained that the ride they got from their square-wheeled ox carts was way too bumpy. Since we all know that liberals are all a bunch of whiners, of course they came up with a lame contraption shaped like a circle that gave a much smoother ride.
But of course we- the silent majority- know the truth! We all know the founding fathers rode around with horse and buggies that had square wheels because they were true patriots!
So- if any of you want to challenge me and say I'm wrong well Ha! No amount of common sense will ever convince me otherwise! So please- keep those replies comin', you liberals!